HOOVER'S SUGGESTION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 117, 13 November 1929, Page 11

HOOVER'S SUGGESTION

BRITISH PRESS COMMENT

SOME DIFFICULTIES

British Official Wireless. (Received 13th November, 11 a.m.) RUGBY, 12th November.

Much attention is devoted to Presi dent Hoover's notable Armistice Day speech outlining the procedure America is prepared to follow for the maintenance and organisation of world f*ftce and suggestions for the consideration, not exclusively, but primarily, of the British and American peoples -with reference to one of his proposals: "That food ships, should be made free of any interference in times of war." President Hoover explained that he did not offer this suggestion as a "governmental proposition," and special)}- that it was not one for consideration at the forthcoming Naval Conference, which had been summoned for a definite and limited purpose. Ho put it forward as one to be beaten out "on the anvil of debate" among civilised peoples and as one which came through the complexities of such a subject as maritime contraband.

The "Daily Telegraph" says: "If the proposal is less simple than it sounds, that does not necessarily mean, that it is impracticable. It" is not quite simple, for example, because there are commodities classifiable as important foods —fats are an outstanding instance—which are important also in the manufacture of munitions. Grain, and other foodstuffs may be used for the making of alcohol. Another possibility of objection arises if we consider the case of two combatants, one depending mainly on seaborne food and the other depending mainly on overland imports of food, the cutting off of which it is not proposed to make illegal. Such considerations arise ufc .the very outset of the examination which, as President Hoover is justified in hoping, will be given to what he admits to be a wide departure from accepted ideas."

.The "Daily News" is inclined to doubt whether all attempts to "humanise war" are anything but polite delusions. "While President Hoover's suggestion demands serious attention, the "Daily News" thinks the same should be given to the proposal recently reviewed by General Smuts that inthe exercise of international law a clear distinction should be drawn between a "public" war waged as a police duty and a "private" war banned under the Kellogg Pact. That involves 'an interpretation of freedom which seems to present a- more simple, line of approach to the problem. If war is treated as outlawed, then the whole question of neutral rights would be revolutionised and the question of freedom of the seas would cease to have any practicable importance. ■ ' "The Times" thinks that although the problem is important, it should not be allowed to distract attention- from the main business which is to make the. Naval Conference a success. Such a success would greatly simplify the solution of such problems. The "Manchester Guardian" expresses the view that so far as Britain's own interests are concerned, she has two main objects, firstly, that she shall not be entered in war and, secondly, that if war comes, her population shall not be starved, as more than the population of almost any other great State it is liable to be starved under modern conditions of warfare. It says that President Hoover's proposal would be a notable contribution to the achievement of the second object no less than the first.